talking about the prose? If so, that's such a different issue (editing prose vs. "editing" poetry)
Yeah, I fully agree. There IS a difference.
(poetry
CAN NOT be edited by Anyone else than the poet, while editing prose is the given job of an editor.)
The point in our case (Bukowski) is, that we have the 'Women-incident' (plus to some degree the letter-documented disagreements predecessing the publication of 'Post Office') which shows All the Same sorts of changes.
The "style" of these changes - in prose - that Buk didn't accept (or in the case of 'PO' at least didn't appreciate) shows
exactly the same pattern as the posthumous changes we all hate so much.
Like these:
Maybe I'm exaggerating this.
and, yes, I do see the (possible) need to change those texts when they move from an underground-mag to a regular trade-book.
But what I say is:
We can Not
Ignore this sort of changes, all of which show
Exactly the Same Pattern as in the posthumous butcherizations.
And we'll have to deal with this, have to find out what was happening there.
Ah, well, that's my contribution content-wise.
Still, and again, I want to clarify, I'm Not
attacking you or your position. I see it more like the (public) discussion of an important subject by two of the leading experts, (maybe comparable to Heisenberg and Schroedinger in the 1920s). This sort of expert-discussion HAS a point and reason and an urge to go on!
Mods:
feel free to make a seperate thread out of these last posts. I think this would be appropriate (and worth it), no?